USPS digital signature annoucement
Stanton McCandlish
positions or statements in any way.]
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 10:46:48 -0400
From: cmer...@reach.com (Charles Merrill -- McCarter ^ English - Newark )
Subject: USPS Elec Comm Serv
Quebec City, Canada, August 3, 1994--The U.S. Postal Service has
dramatically increased its commitment to the security of
communications on the NII, with the announcement of Postal
Electronic Commerce Services ("Postal ECS"), which will offer a
nationwide public key certification service for the authentication
of digital signatures used in paperless electronic commerce.
Richard Rothwell, Senior Director of Technology Integration for the
USPS, officially released the news today in Quebec City, in a paper
delivered to an international working group of the Information
Security Committee of the American Bar Association's Section of
Science and Technology, which has been developing guidelines for
public key certification authorities.
"Our initial implementation is based on the Digital Signature
Standard (DSS) Algorithm set; but our plan is to support other
cryptographic options such as RSA in the near future," Rothwell
said.
Public key digital signatures serve to authenticate the originator
of a digital communication, validate the integrity of the message,
fix the time and date of the message, and prevent the sender from
subsequently repudiating the communication - all features which are
critical to increasing trust in electronic commerce.
The full text of the USPS announcement on Postal ECS follows, which
may be duplicated and disseminated widely, so long as the entire
text is included.
Address to Information Security Committee, EDI/IT Division
American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology
Quebec City, Canada, August 3, 1994
GOOD AFTERNOON
MY NAME IS RICHARD ROTHWELL. I AM SENIOR DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION FOR THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
I DOUBT THERE ARE MANY GROUPS MORE AWARE OF THE SWEEPING CHANGES
TAKING PLACE IN COMMUNICATIONS THAN THIS ONE, OR HOW THOSE
CHANGES AFFECT THE WAY THAT ALL OF US WILL DO BUSINESS IN THE
FUTURE. TODAY I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE
OF THE POSTAL SERVICE IN THIS NEW AGE, AND PARTICULARLY, THE ROLE
THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO ASSUME IN HELPING TO FACILITATE THE
EMERGING WORLD OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
THE POSTAL SERVICE WAS ESTABLISHED, AT THE BIRTH OF THE UNITED
STATES, WITH THE MISSION OF BINDING TOGETHER A DIVERSE AND FAR-
FLUNG NATION THROUGH THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PEOPLE. IT WAS,
AND IS, A BROAD-BASED MISSION. OVER A CENTURY AGO, THEN ACTING
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT WROTE THAT "THE MAKERS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ... HAD IN MIND THE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW WHICH
REGARDED POST OFFICES ... AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF
INTELLIGENCE," A MISSION THEY EXPRESSED "IN VERY COMPREHENSIVE
TERMS..." TODAY WE ARE BEING ASKED BY OUR CUSTOMERS TO CONSIDER
NEW WAYS OF CARRYING OUT THIS MISSION. TODAY WE LIVE IN A
COMPLEX, COST CONSCIOUS, INTERDEPENDENT SOCIETY WHICH IS
DEVELOPING NEW ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND RE-INVENTING
COMMERCIAL PRACTICES. FOR MANY APPLICATIONS, THE NEW
EFFICIENCIES OF ELECTRONIC DATA COMMUNICATION, THE BENEFITS THAT
IT HAS PROVIDED TO ITS EARLY ADOPTERS, AND THE COMPETITIVE
PRESSURES THAT THIS EVOLUTION HAS CREATED ARE DRIVING
CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, AND INDIVIDUALS TO EXPLORE NEW WAYS OF
CONDUCTING BUSINESS, AND SERVING THEIR CUSTOMERS AND
CONSTITUENTS.
YET, AS MANY EXPERTS HAVE NOTED, INCLUDING MANY OF YOU IN THIS
ROOM, DIGITAL FILES AS A RULE ARE NEITHER AS SECURE NOR AS
RELIABLE AS THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. DIGITAL FILES ARE DESIGNED
TO BE EASILY MANIPULATED BY USERS ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. THIS
IS, OF COURSE, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE EFFICIENCY THAT
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CONVEYS. BUT WITHOUT SOME METHOD OF SEALING
A DIGITAL FILE TO ESTABLISH ITS CONTENTS, AUTHOR, AND TIME OF
TRANSMITTAL, THE BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE WILL INEVITABLY
BE LIMITED TO HIGHLY STRUCTURED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN PARTIES THAT
KNOW AND TRUST ON ANOTHER. SUCH LIMITS WILL SEVERELY CONSTRAIN
OR WIPE OUT THE BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE. A
RECENT ARTICLE IN GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS NOTED THAT THE USE OF
TRADING PARTNER AGREEMENTS TO STRUCTURE EDI AGREEMENTS COULD
REQUIRE THE SERVICES OF HUNDREDS OF LAWYERS TO NEGOTIATE, WRITE,
AND ARGUE ABOUT THE AGREEMENTS JUST FOR GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT.
THIS IS EVIDENCE OF THE GREAT DEGREE OF TRANSACTIONAL FRICTION
THAT MUST INEVITABLY ACCOMPANY SUCH AN APPROACH.
IF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IS NOT GOING TO BE LIMITED TO HIGHLY
STRUCTURED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN WELL KNOWN AND TRUSTED PARTIES,
OTHER SOLUTIONS MUST BE DEVELOPED TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE LEGAL
FRAMEWORK AND ELECTRONIC INFRASTRUCTURE. ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION MEDIA CANNOT BECOME A RELIABLE BASIS FOR WIDESPREAD
BUSINESS USE WITHOUT A TRUSTED METHOD OF SEALING DIGITAL
CONTENTS, VERIFYING THE PARTIES INVOLVED, AND ESTABLISHING AN
OFFICIAL DATE AND TIME FOR THE TRANSACTION.
GOVERNMENT HAS SIMILAR NEEDS. TRUST AND SECURITY ARE ESSENTIAL
TO THE SUCCESS OF THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THE
REFORM OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER CRITICAL
FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
PERSONAL, EDUCATIONAL, LITERARY, AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE
TRAVELING ON THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY MUST BE ELECTRONICALLY
GUARDED SO THAT ALL CITIZENS ARE REASONABLY ASSURED OF THE
INTEGRITY OF THEIR RECORDS. THE TIMELY DELIVERY OF IMPORTANT
ELECTRONIC INFORMATION, AND THE IDENTITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE
PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY COMMUNICATE ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. WITHOUT
TRUST AND SECURITY, ALL OF THE SUPERCOMPUTERS AND ALL OF THE
HIGH-SPEED NETWORKS IN THE WORLD CANNOT MAKE THE N.I.I. SUCCEED
ON THE BROAD FUNCTIONAL BASIS FOR WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED.
AS ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST ORGANIZATIONS, THE UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE SHARES MANY OF THE CONCERNS OF BOTH BUSINESS AND
GOVERNMENT. THE POSTAL SERVICE MUST MANAGE TRANSACTIONS WITH
THOUSANDS OF ORGANIZATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE PROCESS OF
ANNUALLY DOING $49 BILLION OF BUSINESS MOVING 171 BILLION PIECES
OF MAIL. BUT OUR CONCERNS ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF ANY
LARGE ENTERPRISE IN THE WORLD TODAY TRYING TO MAKE ITS OPERATIONS
MORE EFFICIENT.
THERE ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE MANY IN THIS ROOM WHO DO NOT BELIEVE
IN THE NEED FOR A MECHANISM FOR ESTABLISHING THE RELIABILITY OF
AN ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, AND BINDING AN INDIVIDUAL TO IT. I
THEREFORE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO CONDUCT A
DETAILED EXPLORATION OF THE ADVANTAGES OF BUILDING A PUBLIC KEY
INFRASTRUCTURE AS A SOLUTION TO THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OF
PROVIDING SECURITY FOR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. WHAT I WILL TALK TO
YOU ABOUT IS THE ROLE THE POSTAL SERVICE CAN PLAY IN PROVIDING
THESE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED.
THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY THE POSTAL SERVICE IS DEVELOPING
PLATFORMS FOR PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS. FIRST, OUR
GENERAL DUTY TO "BIND THE NATION TOGETHER THROUGH THE PERSONAL,
EDUCATIONAL, LITERARY, AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PEOPLE"
HAS TAKEN ON NEW MEANING NOW THAT A HYBRID INFORMATION HIGHWAY,
PART PAPER AND PART ELECTRONIC, HAS BECOME A REALITY AND WILL
CONTINUE TO BE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE. SECOND, NOT
SURPRISINGLY, OUR CUSTOMERS ARE ASKING US TO PLAY AN EXPANDED
ROLE IN FACILITATING PAPER AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE BECAUSE WE
HAVE UNIQUE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH THE
TASK. AND THIRD, WE HAVE TO DEVELOP ELECTRONIC SERVICES TO MEET
OUR CUSTOMERS' NEEDS FOR FASTER, MORE EFFICIENT HANDLING OF THEIR
PRODUCTS.
A CORE FUNCTION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE WILL REMAIN THE
TRANSMISSION OF HARD COPY MESSAGES TO AND FROM RESIDENCES AND
BUSINESSES IN AMERICA. AS I'VE NOTED, THAT FUNCTION FLOWS OUT OF
OUR CORE MISSION TO BIND THE NATION TOGETHER. THE POSTAL SERVICE
HAS OTHER MISSIONS AS WELL. WE ARE TASKED TO PROVIDE SERVICE ON
A UNIVERSAL BASIS TO PATRONS IN ALL AREAS AND TO ALL COMMUNITIES.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND
EXPEDITIOUS DELIVERY OF CORRESPONDENCE. WE ARE CHARGED WITH
PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF POSTAL CUSTOMERS AND MAY NOT MAKE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY ANY MEANS OR FOR ANY PURPOSE ANY
MAILING OR OTHER LIST OF NAMES OR ADDRESSES, PAST OR PRESENT, OF
POSTAL PATRONS OR OTHER PERSONS. AND WE ARE CHARGED WITH
MAINTAINING THE SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE MAILS, AND
INVESTIGATING POSTAL OFFENSES AND CIVIL MATTERS RELATING TO THE
POSTAL SERVICE.
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THESE MISSIONS, THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS AT
LEAST THREE ASSETS WHICH MAKE US A LIKELY CANDIDATE TO PLAY A
ROLE IN THIS EMERGING FIELD. FIRST, THE POSTAL SERVICE ALREADY
HAS MUCH OF THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY
TO ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIDESPREAD ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
SECOND, OUR SIZE AND WIDELY DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES GIVE US THE
PRACTICAL TOOLS TO PROVIDE A MUCH-NEEDED SERVICE ON A UNIVERSAL
BASIS. THIRD, WE ARE UNIQUELY SITUATED TO PROTECT CORE VALUES
SUCH AS SECURITY AND INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY AS WELL AS UNIVERSAL
ACCESS TO THE TOOLS OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
LET ME DISCUSS THESE ONE AT A TIME.
FIRST, THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS THE LEGAL STRUCTURE TO PERFORM THE
DUTIES OF MANAGING A CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY. THE POST OFFICE WAS
ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AS THE UNITED
STATE'S FIRST INFORMATION HIGHWAY. FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS, A
SOPHISTICATED REGIME OF STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES HAS
DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH ENABLES SECURE,
EFFICIENT, AND INEXPENSIVE TRANSMISSION OF PAPER COMMUNICATIONS.
FOR 200 YEARS, THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE HAS CERTIFIED
MAIL, SEALED IT WITH THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF LAW, PROVIDED
RESPONSIBLE AND TIMELY MAIL DELIVERY, AND INSURED PATRONS AGAINST
LOSS OR THEFT. A RELIABLE AND TRUSTED MAIL SYSTEM REMARKABLY
FREE OF CORRUPTION OR ABUSE HAS ACCOMPANIED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SYSTEM OF COMMERCE IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH IS SECOND TO NONE
IN THE WORLD.
FOR HARDCOPY COMMUNICATIONS, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS ALREADY IN
PLACE TO HANDLE ISSUES SUCH AS LIABILITY, INDEMNITY,
CONFIDENTIALITY, FRAUDULENT USE, THEFT, DEFINITE DATING, ETC. A
SIMILAR FRAMEWORK WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE. CUSTOMERS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE POSTAL SERVICE MAY
BE IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO PROVIDE PART OF THAT STRUCTURE. FOR
EXAMPLE, SOME CUSTOMERS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED
WITH THEIR OWN CAPACITY TO HANDLE LIABILITY ISSUES, AND THAT THE
POSTAL SERVICE PROVIDES A READY-MADE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROBLEMS
INHERENT IN DEALING WITH OTHER COMPANIES, WHILE STILL OTHERS HAVE
ASKED FOR A REGIME FOR CONTROLLING FRAUD WHICH IS AS STRONG AND
CONVENIENT AS THAT IN PLACE FOR MAIL FRAUD. THUS, THE STRONG
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED FOR HANDLING PAPER COMMUNICATIONS CAN
PROVIDE SIMILAR BENEFITS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
SECOND, OUR CUSTOMERS ARE ASKING FOR OUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS AREA
BECAUSE WE HAVE UNIQUE PRACTICAL ASSETS, INCLUDING:
THE 40,000 RETAIL FACILITIES DISTRIBUTED NATIONWIDE
UNIVERSAL PRESENCE AND THE CAPACITY TO ACHIEVE
SIGNIFICANT SCALE
THE RESOURCES OF AN EXISTING NATIONAL INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
A VERY STRONG VERIFICATION PROCESS CURRENTLY USED FOR
PASSPORTS, THAT INVOLVES PROOF OF ID AND OTHER
INFORMATION TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.
THE EXPERIENCE, POLICIES, AND ABILITY TO ARCHIVE
RECORDS WITHOUT RISK THAT THEY WOULD BE USED FOR
COLLATERAL COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
THE POSTAL SERVICE IS ALSO A REMARKABLY LONG-LIVED ORGANIZATION,
AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE STRUGGLED WITH ARCHIVING POLICIES WILL
RECOGNIZE THAT TO BE AN IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE. AS BOB JUENEMAN HAS
SAID ON THE INTERNET, "CERTIFICATES 'R US" MAY BE GONE TOMORROW.
IF YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A CERTIFICATE WAS REGISTERED ON A
CERTAIN DATE, AND YOU ARE SEEKING AN APPROPRIATE ARCHIVING
FACILITY, YOU CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE THE POSTAL SERVICE WILL STILL
BE AROUND TO SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST.
A THIRD STRENGTH THE POSTAL SERVICE BRINGS TO ENABLING ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE, AND ANOTHER REASON THAT OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE ASKED FOR
HELP, IS OUR CAPACITY TO CREATE CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
THAT CAN REACH VIRTUALLY EVERY COMMUNITY IN AMERICA, BECAUSE WE
ALREADY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES. WE CAN
THEREFORE PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE QUESTION OF HOW TO PUT THE
TOOLS OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, SUCH AS CERTIFICATES, INTO THE
HANDS OF EVERYONE. THERE ARE MANY OBSTACLES TO PREVENT CITIZENS
FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE TECHNOLOGICAL, GEOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND
KNOWLEDGE BARRIERS WHICH PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE
BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. TO PROVIDE UNIVERSAL SERVICE TO
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE WE MUST PROVIDE ACCESS WHICH IS UNIVERSALLY
USABLE AND UBIQUITOUS AND SCALABLE. BY PROVIDING A SOLUTION TO
SOME OF THESE ACCESS PROBLEMS, THE POSTAL SERVICE MAY HAVE AN
IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN ENSURING THAT FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS IN
AMERICA PROVIDE A CONTINUING FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINING A
DEMOCRATIC, PARTICIPATORY SOCIETY.
THUS, MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES NEEDED BY AN ENTITY
WISHING TO TAKE PART IN CERTIFICATE ISSUANCE AND MANAGEMENT
ALREADY EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THE POSTAL
SERVICE WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE VERY SIMILAR SERVICES FOR THE
SUPPORT OF CORRESPONDENCE WHEN THE PHYSICAL FRONTIER WAS CHAOTIC
AND HARD TO REACH. IT IS READY TO PROVIDE SIMILAR SERVICES ON
THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER.
AS THE POSTMASTER GENERAL HAS INFORMED CONGRESS, WE ARE ACTIVELY
SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE N.I.I. TO FACILITATE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OUR OWN BUSINESS AND TO HELP US CARRY OUT OUR
MISSION. ON MARCH 24, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE SENATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE THAT "WORKING WITH OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES, WE MAY BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
SYSTEM." HE ALSO NOTED THAT, THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A KIOSK
PROGRAM THAT MIGHT CARRY OUT POSTAL TRANSACTIONS AND PERHAPS ALSO
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES, OUR POSTAL LOBBIES
COULD BECOME "ON-RAMPS" TO THE ELECTRONIC SUPER HIGHWAY.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL HIGHLIGHTED TWO IMPORTANT AREAS IN WHICH
THE POSTAL SERVICE MAY BE HELPFUL: SERVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND PROVIDING UNIVERSAL SERVICE TO
THOSE CITIZENS WHO ARE IN DANGER OF BEING LEFT OUT OF THE
INFORMATION REVOLUTION. TO THESE HE MIGHT HAVE ADDED A THIRD,
EQUALLY IMPORTANT AREA: PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF AMERICAN
CITIZENS. THIS CONCERN IS DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN POSTAL TRADITION
AND STATUTE. WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE SECURITY OF ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE WE SHOULD NOT MISS THE WAY IN WHICH COMMERCIAL SECURITY
AND INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY ARE INTERCONNECTED CONCEPTS.
WHILE IT IS TOO EARLY TO KNOW WHAT PRECISELY LIES AHEAD, LET ME
SHARE WITH YOU A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEMS WE ARE
DEVELOPING, BOTH FOR OUR OWN USE AND FOR THAT OF OUR CUSTOMERS.
THE POSTAL SERVICE IS USING PUBLIC KEY ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY, AND
RELATED TECHNOLOGIES, TO DEVELOP A PUBLIC KEY CERTIFICATION
AUTHORITY AND A SET OF ASSOCIATED TRUSTED THIRD PARTY SERVICES
WHICH WE CALL POSTAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SERVICES (POSTAL ECS).
WHEN INITIALLY DEPLOYED, POSTAL ECS WILL PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
ELECTRONIC ASSURANCES WITHIN AND AMONG GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND
BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS. IN
PARTICULAR, THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS DEVELOPED THE ABILITY TO:
ISSUE PUBLIC KEY CERTIFICATES AND STORE THEM IN A
PUBLIC DIRECTORY;
PROVIDE FOR THE "SEALING" OF SELECTED DOCUMENTS OR
OTHER ELECTRONIC OBJECTS AND ASSOCIATING THEM WITH A
DIGITAL SIGNATURE AND A TRUSTED TIME AND DATE STAMP;
PROVIDE SERVICES FOR PUBLIC KEY CERTIFICATE PUBLICATION
AND REVOCATION; AND,
PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO ENCRYPT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
MOVING BETWEEN THE USER ENVIRONMENT AND THE POSTAL ECS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
FINALLY, PROVIDE NEAR REAL-TIME ACCESS TO CERTIFICATES
AND THEIR STATUS.
THE CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY WILL ISSUE AND MANAGE X.509 PUBLIC
KEY CERTIFICATES CONTAINING A PERSON'S X.500 DISTINGUISHED NAME,
PUBLIC KEY, AND OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. USERS CAN THEN
RETRIEVE A CERTIFICATE FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND USE ITS
PUBLIC KEY TO AUTHENTICATE A DIGITAL SIGNATURE GENERATED BY THE
COMPLEMENTARY PRIVATE KEY.
THE CORRESPONDENCE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE SYSTEM IS THE POSTAL
ECS SEAL WHICH PROVIDES USERS WITH A VALIDATION OF THE ORIGINATOR
BASED ON HIS OR HER DIGITAL SIGNATURE. WE ALSO PROVIDE A POSTAL
SERVICE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ON THE DIGEST OF AN ELECTRONIC OBJECT
THAT ASSURES THAT IT CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT DETECTION. WE
ALSO PROVIDE THE POSTAL SERVICE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ON A DATE AND
TIME STAMP THAT WE SUPPLY TO ENABLE PROOF OF EXISTENCE AT A POINT
IN TIME AND WE PROVIDE ARCHIVING FOR THOSE DATE AND TIME STAMPS.
FINALLY, WE PROVIDE NEAR REAL-TIME ACCESS TO CERTIFICATES AND
THEIR STATUS. THIS ALLOWS A USER TO GET UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION
ON THE VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATES, AND REMOVES THE NEED FOR USERS
TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CERTIFICATE REVOCATION LISTS.
THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS IMPLEMENTED THE CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY
SERVICES, THE CORRESPONDENCE SERVICES AND THE SUPPORTING
DIRECTORY ON A HOST COMPUTER SYSTEM IN ONE OF OUR MAJOR
PRODUCTION DATA CENTERS. WE HAVE ALSO DEVELOPED THREE POSTAL
SERVICE-LICENSED USER AGENTS AS REFERENCE MODELS TO BE INSTALLED
ON END USER WORKSTATIONS THAT WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO POSTAL ECS
SERVICES. THEY RUN ON MICROSOFT WINDOWS-BASED PC~S AND ACCESS
POSTAL ECS SERVICES VIA E-MAIL (EITHER INTERNET OR X.400). WE
ARE ALSO WORKING ON AN INTERACTIVE DIAL-UP COMMUNICATION
ALTERNATIVE AND EXPECT THIS TO BE AVAILABLE SHORTLY.
THESE USER AGENTS CONTAIN STANDARD PROGRAMMING INTERFACES THAT
LINK USER APPLICATIONS, CRYPTOGRAPHIC ROUTINES, AND ECS SERVICES
TOGETHER. OUR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION IS BASED ON THE DIGITAL
SIGNATURE STANDARD (DSS) ALGORITHM SET; BUT OUR PLAN IS TO
SUPPORT OTHER CRYPTOGRAPHIC OPTIONS SUCH AS RSA IN THE NEAR
FUTURE.
WE ARE NOW MOVING FROM DEVELOPMENTAL WORK TO ACTUAL PROOF OF
CONCEPT PILOT TESTING OF THESE SERVICES BOTH INTERNALLY IN THE
USPS AND WITH OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCY PARTNERS. OUR PLANS WILL
EVOLVE AS WE GAIN EXPERIENCE FROM THESE INITIAL PILOT TESTS AND
CONTINUE TO TALK WITH CUSTOMERS, AND EXPERTS IN ENCRYPTION,
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, AND COMPUTER SCIENCE. WE HAVE SHARED OUR
PLANS WITH CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE MEDIA. AND WE
HAVE ASKED OURSELVES THREE KEY QUESTIONS:
IS THIS INITIATIVE CRITICAL TO OUR MISSION AND OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC?
DO OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE A NEED FOR OUR PARTICIPATION?
AND,
WOULD THE COSTS OF PROVIDING THESE SERVICES BE BALANCED
BY POTENTIAL REVENUES?
CERTAINLY THE RESPONSES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TO DATE MORE THAN
JUSTIFIES OUR VIEW THAT THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH WE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT.
BEFORE CONCLUDING, LET ME DIRECTLY ADDRESS A CONTROVERSIAL
PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT SO YOU CAN
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SEE AS THE FUTURE WORLD OF ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE. THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF DEBATE ABOUT THE
RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF HIERARCHIAL VERSUS PEER-TO-PEER OR ONE-
LEVEL MODELS FOR MANAGEMENT OF DIGITAL SIGNATURE. TO SOME
EXTENT, I BELIEVE THIS DEBATE MISSES THE POINT. THE SYSTEM FOR
MANAGING X.500 CERTIFICATES THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE ADOPTED WILL
BE ADOPTED ONLY BECAUSE IT MEETS THE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE USERS.
BECAUSE THE COMPLEX COMMUNICATION NEEDS OF THE FUTURE WILL
REQUIRE FLEXIBILITY TO MEET INDIVIDUAL DESIRES, SOME MIX OF
HIERARCHIAL AND PEER-TO-PEER OR FLAT MANAGEMENT SCHEMES WILL BE
ADOPTED.
WHAT THE RECIPIENT OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT SIGNED WITH A
DIGITAL SIGNATURE NEEDS TO KNOW IS HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO GIVE THAT
SIGNATURE -- OR, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT ACTIONS TO TAKE BASED ON AN
EVALUATION OF THE SENDER. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT IS
DECIDED EVERY DAY BY PEOPLE -- SHOULD WE SELL SECURITIES TO A
VOICE OVER THE PHONE? SHOULD WE PLACE AN ORDER WITH A NEW
SALESMAN? GIVEN THE INFINITE VARIETY OF POSSIBLE TRANSACTIONS
AND ENCOUNTERS, THERE IS NO POINT IN TRYING TO IMPOSE ON
ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS A SINGLE PARADIGM FOR AUTHENTICATION.
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ASSURANCE, AND DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES, WILL
BE NECESSARY FOR DIFFERENT USES. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE
PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION ARE AWARE OF THE LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
PROVIDED.
THE POSTAL SERVICE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE IN FILLING SOME SPECIFIC
NEEDS IN THE CERTIFICATE ARENA, BUT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF
CONTROLLING OR DOMINATING THAT ARENA. FOR THE NEAR FUTURE THE
UNIVERSE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE MANY
DIFFERENT GALAXIES. MANY VARYING CONCEPTS AND SERVICES WILL BE
ABLE TO MAKE VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. MANY OTHER ENTITIES WILL
PROVIDE SERVICES IN THIS AREA: AS VICE PRESIDENT GORE HAS NOTED
IN NUMEROUS SPEECHES, THERE IS A ROLE FOR BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
ENTITIES. WE PLAN TO PROVIDE SERVICES BASED UPON IDENTIFIED
NEEDS, WHICH CUSTOMERS WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL USE.
IN KEEPING WITH THE PHILOSOPHY I HAVE ARTICULATED, LET ME SAY
THAT THE POSTAL SERVICE, IN ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PRODUCTS,
INTENDS TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE CRYPTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET
PLACE. IN ADDITION, WE WILL NOT COMPETE WITH NETWORK SERVICE
PROVIDERS, NOR WILL WE BECOME A NETWORK OR CARRIER.
IN DEVELOPING THESE SERVICES, WE ARE KEENLY INTERESTED IN THE
WORK OF THIS GROUP. WHILE THE TECHNOLOGY AND SCALE ISSUES SEEM
TO US TO BE MANAGEABLE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE STILL MANY
LEGAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE DESIGN OF A
PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICE MIGHT BEST WORK.
THE LIABILITY ISSUES ARE NOT YET COMPLETELY CLEAR, AND THE DUTIES
OF EACH ENTITY IN SUCH AN INFRASTRUCTURE NEED TO BE ARTICULATED.
AS CUSTOMERS SEEK OUR SERVICES, WE WILL HAVE TO FACE QUESTIONS OF
SCALABILITY, INVESTMENT, AND THE REGULATORY ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE. CAN THE SERVICE BE
MANAGED? WHAT INVESTMENT WILL BE REQUIRED? HOW WILL REGULATORS
HAVE US PRESENT THE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND AT WHAT PRICE?
WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EXCHANGE OF VIEWS THAT THIS FORUM MAKES
POSSIBLE. WE ALL HAVE MUCH TO LEARN IN THIS AREA, AND I BELIEVE
WE SHOULD WELCOME THE FACT THAT WE LIVE IN SUCH INTERESTING
TIMES.
[end]
--
<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/mech.html"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:me...@eff.org"> me...@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Fndtn.
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/a.html"> Online Activist </A>
Bill Sommerfeld
Stanton McCandlish <me...@eff.org> forwarded:
>From: cmer...@reach.com (Charles Merrill -- McCarter ^ English - Newark )
>Subject: USPS Elec Comm Serv
>
>MY NAME IS RICHARD ROTHWELL. I AM SENIOR DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY
>INTEGRATION FOR THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
Would you trust an entity which can't even figure out how to turn off
CAPS LOCK? :-)
- Bill
Tom Horsley
in upper case only :-).
(Any mixed case message will be considered an attempt to circumvent the USPS
monopoly on first class mail, and you will be sued :-).
--
--
Tom.H...@mail.csd.harris.com
Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL 33444
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309
"National Debate" means pundits on both coasts are writing about it...
Pieter van Zee
*******************************************************************
Address to Information Security Committee, EDI/IT Division
American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology
Quebec City, Canada, August 3, 1994
Good afternoon
My name is Richard Rothwell. I am Senior Director of Technology
Integration for the United States Postal Service.
I doubt there are many groups more aware of the sweeping changes
taking place in communications than this one, or how those
changes affect the way that all of us will do business in the
future. Today I want to share with you my thoughts on the role
of the Postal Service in this new age, and particularly, the role
that we are being asked to assume in helping to facilitate the
emerging world of electronic commerce.
The Postal Service was established, at the birth of the United
States, with the mission of binding together a diverse and far-
flung nation through the correspondence of the people. It was,
and is, a broad-based mission. Over a century ago, then acting
Attorney General William Howard Taft wrote that "the makers of
the constitution ... Had in mind the comprehensive view which
regarded post offices ... As instruments for the transmission of
intelligence," a mission they expressed "in very comprehensive
terms..." today we are being asked by our customers to consider
new ways of carrying out this mission. Today we live in a
complex, cost conscious, interdependent society which is
developing new electronic communication systems and re-inventing
commercial practices. For many applications, the new
efficiencies of electronic data communication, the benefits that
it has provided to its early adopters, and the competitive
pressures that this evolution has created are driving
corporations, governments, and individuals to explore new ways of
conducting business, and serving their customers and
constituents.
Yet, as many experts have noted, including many of you in this
room, digital files as a rule are neither as secure nor as
reliable as their paper counterparts. Digital files are designed
to be easily manipulated by users on different computers. This
is, of course, an essential element of the efficiency that
electronic commerce conveys. But without some method of sealing
a digital file to establish its contents, author, and time of
transmittal, the benefits of electronic commerce will inevitably
be limited to highly structured transactions between parties that
know and trust on another. Such limits will severely constrain
or wipe out the benefits of electronic data interchange. A
recent article in Government Computer News noted that the use of
trading partner agreements to structure edi agreements could
require the services of hundreds of lawyers to negotiate, write,
and argue about the agreements just for government procurement.
This is evidence of the great degree of transactional friction
that must inevitably accompany such an approach.
If electronic commerce is not going to be limited to highly
structured transactions between well known and trusted parties,
other solutions must be developed to create an effective legal
framework and electronic infrastructure. Electronic
communication media cannot become a reliable basis for widespread
business use without a trusted method of sealing digital
contents, verifying the parties involved, and establishing an
official date and time for the transaction.
Government has similar needs. Trust and security are essential
to the success of the National Information Infrastructure, the
reform of government performance, and a number of other critical
functions, such as the implementation of health care reform.
Personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence
traveling on the information superhighway must be electronically
guarded so that all citizens are reasonably assured of the
integrity of their records. The timely delivery of important
electronic information, and the identity and authority of the
people with whom they communicate are equally important. Without
trust and security, all of the supercomputers and all of the
high-speed networks in the world cannot make the N.I.I. Succeed
on the broad functional basis for which it was conceived.
As one of the nation's largest organizations, the United States
Postal Service shares many of the concerns of both business and
government. The Postal Service must manage transactions with
thousands of organizations on a daily basis in the process of
annually doing $49 billion of business moving 171 billion pieces
of mail. But our concerns are no different from those of any
large enterprise in the world today trying to make its operations
more efficient.
There are not likely to be many in this room who do not believe
in the need for a mechanism for establishing the reliability of
an electronic transmission, and binding an individual to it. I
therefore do not believe that it will be necessary to conduct a
detailed exploration of the advantages of building a public key
infrastructure as a solution to the technical problems of
providing security for electronic documents. What I will talk to
you about is the role the Postal Service can play in providing
these technical solutions where they are needed.
There are several reasons why the Postal Service is developing
platforms for providing solutions to these problems. First, our
general duty to "bind the nation together through the personal,
educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people"
has taken on new meaning now that a hybrid information highway,
part paper and part electronic, has become a reality and will
continue to be for at least the next decade. Second, not
surprisingly, our customers are asking us to play an expanded
role in facilitating paper and electronic commerce because we
have unique legal and institutional resources to accomplish the
task. And third, we have to develop electronic services to meet
our customers' needs for faster, more efficient handling of their
products.
A core function of the Postal Service will remain the
transmission of hard copy messages to and from residences and
businesses in America. As I've noted, that function flows out of
our core mission to bind the nation together. The Postal Service
has other missions as well. We are tasked to provide service on
a universal basis to patrons in all areas and to all communities.
We are required to use every effort to provide efficient and
expeditious delivery of correspondence. We are charged with
protecting the privacy of postal customers and may not make
available to the public by any means or for any purpose any
mailing or other list of names or addresses, past or present, of
postal patrons or other persons. And we are charged with
maintaining the security and integrity of the mails, and
investigating postal offenses and civil matters relating to the
Postal Service.
As a consequence of these missions, the Postal Service has at
least three assets which make us a likely candidate to play a
role in this emerging field. First, the Postal Service already
has much of the legal and institutional infrastructure necessary
to assist in the development of widespread electronic commerce.
Second, our size and widely distributed resources give us the
practical tools to provide a much-needed service on a universal
basis. Third, we are uniquely situated to protect core values
such as security and individual privacy as well as universal
access to the tools of electronic commerce.
Let me discuss these one at a time.
First, the Postal Service has the legal structure to perform the
duties of managing a certificate authority. The post office was
originally established by the Continental Congress as the United
state's first information highway. For over two hundred years, a
sophisticated regime of statutes, regulations, and policies has
developed to provide the infrastructure which enables secure,
efficient, and inexpensive transmission of paper communications.
For 200 years, the United States Postal Service has certified
mail, sealed it with the power and authority of law, provided
responsible and timely mail delivery, and insured patrons against
loss or theft. A reliable and trusted mail system remarkably
free of corruption or abuse has accompanied the development of a
system of commerce in the United States which is second to none
in the world.
For hardcopy communications, the legal framework is already in
place to handle issues such as liability, indemnity,
confidentiality, fraudulent use, theft, definite dating, etc. A
similar framework will be required to support electronic
commerce. Customers have suggested that the Postal Service may
be in a unique position to provide part of that structure. For
example, some customers have suggested that they are concerned
with their own capacity to handle liability issues, and that the
Postal Service provides a ready-made solution to this problem.
Others have expressed concern about the confidentiality problems
inherent in dealing with other companies, while still others have
asked for a regime for controlling fraud which is as strong and
convenient as that in place for mail fraud. Thus, the strong
legal framework established for handling paper communications can
provide similar benefits for electronic commerce.
Second, our customers are asking for our assistance in this area
because we have unique practical assets, including:
* The 40,000 retail facilities distributed nationwide
* Universal presence and the capacity to achieve
significant scale
* The resources of an existing National Information
Infrastructure
* A very strong verification process currently used for
passports, that involves proof of id and other
information to a federal employee.
* The experience, policies, and ability to archive
records without risk that they would be used for
collateral commercial purposes.
The Postal Service is also a remarkably long-lived organization,
and those of you who have struggled with archiving policies will
recognize that to be an important advantage. As Bob Jueneman has
said on the internet, "Certificates 'R Us" may be gone tomorrow.
If you have to prove that a certificate was registered on a
certain date, and you are seeking an appropriate archiving
facility, you can have confidence the Postal Service will still
be around to support your request.
A third strength the Postal Service brings to enabling electronic
commerce, and another reason that our customers have asked for
help, is our capacity to create certificate management systems
that can reach virtually every community in America, because we
already have a substantial presence in those communities. We can
therefore provide a solution to the question of how to put the
tools of electronic commerce, such as certificates, into the
hands of everyone. There are many obstacles to prevent citizens
from taking advantage of the benefits of electronic commerce.
Currently there are technological, geographic, economic, and
knowledge barriers which prevent people from participating in the
benefits of electronic commerce. To provide universal service to
electronic commerce we must provide access which is universally
usable and ubiquitous and scalable. By providing a solution to
some of these access problems, the Postal Service may have an
important role to play in ensuring that future communications in
America provide a continuing framework for sustaining a
democratic, participatory society.
Thus, many of the institutional features needed by an entity
wishing to take part in certificate issuance and management
already exist in the United States Postal Service. The Postal
Service was established to provide very similar services for the
support of correspondence when the physical frontier was chaotic
and hard to reach. It is ready to provide similar services on
the electronic frontier.
As the Postmaster General has informed Congress, we are actively
supporting the development of the N.I.I. To facilitate the
development of our own business and to help us carry out our
mission. On March 24, the Postmaster General testified before
the senate affairs committee that "working with other federal
agencies, we may be able to develop an electronic commerce
system." He also noted that, through the development of a kiosk
program that might carry out postal transactions and perhaps also
disseminate information from other agencies, our postal lobbies
could become "on-ramps" to the electronic super highway.
the Postmaster General highlighted two important areas in which
the Postal Service may be helpful: serving the requirements of
other government agencies, and providing universal service to
those citizens who are in danger of being left out of the
information revolution. To these he might have added a third,
equally important area: protecting the privacy of American
citizens. This concern is deeply embedded in postal tradition
and statute. When we speak of the security of electronic
commerce we should not miss the way in which commercial security
and individual privacy are interconnected concepts.
While it is too early to know what precisely lies ahead, let me
share with you a general description of the systems we are
developing, both for our own use and for that of our customers.
The Postal Service is using public key encryption technology, and
related technologies, to develop a public key certification
authority and a set of associated trusted third party services
which we call Postal Electronic Commerce Services (Postal ECS).
When initially deployed, Postal ECS will provide a basis for
electronic assurances within and among government agencies, and
between government agencies and their constituents. In
particular, the Postal Service has developed the ability to:
* Issue public key certificates and store them in a
public directory;
* Provide for the "sealing" of selected documents or
other electronic objects and associating them with a
digital signature and a trusted time and date stamp;
* Provide services for public key certificate publication
and revocation; and,
* Provide the ability to encrypt confidential information
moving between the user environment and the Postal ECS
management system.
* Finally, provide near real-time access to certificates
and their status.
The certification authority will issue and manage X.509 public
key certificates containing a person's X.500 distinguished name,
public key, and other identifying information. Users can then
retrieve a certificate from the Postal Service, and use its
public key to authenticate a digital signature generated by the
complementary private key.
The correspondence service provided by the system is the Postal
ECS seal which provides users with a validation of the originator
based on his or her digital signature. We also provide a postal
service digital signature on the digest of an electronic object
that assures that it cannot be changed without detection. We
also provide the Postal Service digital signature on a date and
time stamp that we supply to enable proof of existence at a point
in time and we provide archiving for those date and time stamps.
Finally, we provide near real-time access to certificates and
their status. This allows a user to get up-to-date information
on the validity of certificates, and removes the need for users
to maintain their own certificate revocation lists.
The Postal Service has implemented the certificate authority
services, the correspondence services and the supporting
directory on a host computer system in one of our major
production data centers. We have also developed three postal
service-licensed user agents as reference models to be installed
on end user workstations that will provide access to Postal ECS
services. They run on Microsoft Windows-based PCs and access
Postal ECS services via e-mail (either internet or X.400). We
are also working on an interactive dial-up communication
alternative and expect this to be available shortly.
These user agents contain standard programming interfaces that
link user applications, cryptographic routines, and ECS services
together. Our initial implementation is based on the digital
signature standard (DSS) algorithm set; but our plan is to
support other cryptographic options such as RSA in the near
future.
We are now moving from developmental work to actual proof of
concept pilot testing of these services both internally in the
usps and with our government agency partners. Our plans will
evolve as we gain experience from these initial pilot tests and
continue to talk with customers, and experts in encryption,
software development, and computer science. We have shared our
plans with Congress, the administration, and the media. And we
have asked ourselves three key questions:
* Is this initiative critical to our mission and our
responsibility to the public?
* Do our customers have a need for our participation?
and,
* Would the costs of providing these services be balanced
by potential revenues?
Certainly the responses that we have received to date more than
justifies our view that this is an area in which we should
continue to be an active participant.
Before concluding, let me directly address a controversial
philosophical discussion about certificate management so you can
understand what we see as the future world of electronic
commerce. There has been a great deal of debate about the
relative advantages of hierarchial versus peer-to-peer or one-
level models for management of digital signature. To some
extent, I believe this debate misses the point. The system for
managing X.500 certificates that will eventually be adopted will
be adopted only because it meets the business needs of the users.
Because the complex communication needs of the future will
require flexibility to meet individual desires, some mix of
hierarchial and peer-to-peer or flat management schemes will be
adopted.
What the recipient of an electronic document signed with a
digital signature needs to know is how much weight to give that
signature -- or, in other words, what actions to take based on an
evaluation of the sender. This is exactly the same thing that is
decided every day by people -- should we sell securities to a
voice over the phone? Should we place an order with a new
salesman? Given the infinite variety of possible transactions
and encounters, there is no point in trying to impose on
electronic transactions a single paradigm for authentication.
Different levels of assurance, and different architectures, will
be necessary for different uses. What is important is that the
parties to the transaction are aware of the level of assurance
provided.
The Postal Service can be of assistance in filling some specific
needs in the certificate arena, but it has no intention of
controlling or dominating that arena. For the near future the
universe of electronic commerce will continue to have many
different galaxies. Many varying concepts and services will be
able to make valuable contributions. Many other entities will
provide services in this area: as vice president gore has noted
in numerous speeches, there is a role for both private and public
entities. We plan to provide services based upon identified
needs, which customers will decide whether or not they will use.
In keeping with the philosophy I have articulated, let me say
that the Postal Service, in any development of these products,
intends to support multiple cryptographic products in the market
place. In addition, we will not compete with network service
providers, nor will we become a network or carrier.
In developing these services, we are keenly interested in the
work of this group. While the technology and scale issues seem
to us to be manageable, we recognize that there are still many
legal questions concerning the way in which the design of a
public key infrastructure management service might best work.
The liability issues are not yet completely clear, and the duties
of each entity in such an infrastructure need to be articulated.
As customers seek our services, we will have to face questions of
scalability, investment, and the regulatory issues associated
with the introduction of a new service. Can the service be
managed? What investment will be required? How will regulators
have us present the service to the public and at what price?
We greatly appreciate the exchange of views that this forum makes
possible. We all have much to learn in this area, and I believe
we should welcome the fact that we live in such interesting
times.
[end]
Pieter van Zee
From: me...@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Subject: USPS digital signature annoucement
Date: 4 Aug 1994 12:40:09 -0500
Lines: 438
Message-ID: <1994080417...@eff.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu
*******************************************************************
Address to Information Security Committee, EDI/IT Division
American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology
Quebec City, Canada, August 3, 1994
Good afternoon
signature standard (DSS) algorithm set; but our plan is to
support other cryptographic options such as RSA in the near
Brian K. Yoder
>From: me...@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
>[This is just an informational forward, and does not represent official EFF
>positions or statements in any way.]
Well, the fact that the EFF isn't overtly battling against this nonsense
is another indication that they have completely abandoned their supposed
advocacy of the rights of the users of the net. Who needs the USPS to get
involved with this? They are just interested in making sure they don't
have their monopoly on certain kinds of communication superceded by
methods they have no control of. I should expect this kind of craven
reaction on the part of the EFF by now.
>Quebec City, Canada, August 3, 1994--The U.S. Postal Service has
>dramatically increased its commitment to the security of
>communications on the NII, with the announcement of Postal
>Electronic Commerce Services ("Postal ECS"), which will offer a
>nationwide public key certification service for the authentication
>of digital signatures used in paperless electronic commerce.
[Body of text removed...]
>We greatly appreciate the exchange of views that this forum makes
>possible. We all have much to learn in this area, and I believe
>we should welcome the fact that we live in such interesting
>times.
Well, the USPS isn't going to like this, but they need to hear it.
We don't need them. Setting up the kinds of services discussed here
is really quite simple and would in no way benefit from the involvement
of a huge bureaucratic organization like the USPS. When there's a demand
for such services (and at present there isn't much of a demand) then
it is simple enough for someone to create one (or more) businesses to
solve the problem. If it needs to be a big reliable business with deep
pockets (which I doubt) then there are plenty that could easily do such
a thing. If not, existing or new companies could easily handle it.
The fact that the USPS is worried about not getting its piece of the
electronic communication pie is no justification for their grabbing up
part of it, and that's all that's behind this move. When they claim
to have "much to learn in this area" they are right on the money. What
they should already know is that you shouldn't mess with what you don't
understand, and what they should learn is that they aren't needed here.
Of course they won't listen to such advice, so they need to have it
told to them repeatedly and loudly.
Is the EFF going to fight this or do we have to do it ourselves?
--Brian
--
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil |
| byo...@netcom.com| the harmony of the collective society that is coming, |
| US Networx, Inc. | where everyone (would be) interdependent" --John Dewey |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
David Sternlight
Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
you don't like it, don't use it. There is no suggestion that this will be
either compulsory, nor that it will eliminate (or even that the USPS has the
power to eliminate) alternatives from other companies.
Frankly, I like the idea of an organization with offices all over the
country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
offering certificate or signature services. Sounds pretty convenient to me.
I will examine what security measures they take internally, and then decide
whether I want to use it or not.
This anti-institutional hysteria has really gone too far, Brian.
David
--
People who post newsgroup flames
Must have flammable gas for brains.
Burma Shave.
David A. Honig
>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>you don't like it, don't use it. There is no suggestion that this will be
>either compulsory, nor that it will eliminate (or even that the USPS has the
>power to eliminate) alternatives from other companies.
How *dare* you use the word "marketplace" in the same sentence as USPS.
The USPS is a taxpayer subsidized government-thug-implemented-monopoly.
>
>country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
At taxpayer's expense..
>This anti-institutional hysteria has really gone too far, Brian.
Please read some economics before using words like "marketplace"
--
David A. Honig, informivore
Prof. D. Denning: fool, fascist or Faust? Only the NSA knows for sure..
Ayatollah:Rushdie::NSA:RSA
David Farber
EFF cannot battle everything. We pick where there is real substance
and not where it is just speachs.
Dave
David Farber; Moore Prof. of Telecom, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389
Join EFF! For information about membership, send mail to e...@eff.org.
David Sternlight
>
>>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>>you don't like it, don't use it. There is no suggestion that this will be
>>either compulsory, nor that it will eliminate (or even that the USPS has the
>>power to eliminate) alternatives from other companies.
>
>surprised that you want the government to run this particular aspect
>of network security since instituting such schemes seems to be your
>primary goal in life. In any event, since when have you seen the government
>grab control of something while saying "We are going to be mean and nasty
>and abuse everyone."?
I said no such thing. You are putting "government run this" words in my
mouth. What I said was USPS offering the service in the marketplace in
competition with other commercial offerors. Stop falsifying what people say,
and respond to what they actually say.
>
>I wonder if your evaluation of this proposal as not being "compulsory"
>was done with the same keen insight that made you claim the same thing
>about the Clipper chip?
More irrelevant baloney. Stick to the topic, if you're capable of doing
that. Personal attacks don't enhance credibility but reveal a lack of it.
>>Frankly, I like the idea of an organization with offices all over the
>>country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
>>offering certificate or signature services. Sounds pretty convenient to me.
>
>Then have McDonalds do it.
They didn't offer. If they did, I'd consider it if they were technically
competent. Your wise guy remarks show you total lack of seriousness.
>
>Look, the government is supposed to be LIMITED in the scope of things it
>controls. Do you know what that word means? Do you know why it was
>designed to be limited in the first place? Where in the Constitution do
>you see the words "data encryption" mentioned?
Do you have some problem understanding that the USPS is not the government?
Do you have some problem understanding what the USPS actually offered (hint:
it was not data encryption)?
>As for convenience, a live validation service could be supplied online
>in a transparent manner regardless of who did it. Whether it was
>Western Union (which has also been around for a long time and isn't going to
>go away and has lots of offices) or Netcom or AT&T, the convenience
>would be about the same...if the service is done right, and given a choice
>between the three, I would predict that the Post Office would be the
>least convenient and most expensive.
Totally irrelevant. If others want to offer the service as well, let them. I
suggested this, rather than suggesting it be restricted to the USPS alone.
Are you so involved in making yourself right and others wrong that you are
falsifying what they say when you can't deal with it directly?
>
>>I will examine what security measures they take internally, and then decide
>>whether I want to use it or not.
>
>Your assumption is that you will have a choice and that the competition
>will not be placed at a severe legal disadvantage (as the competition
>for the USPS currently is in the mail delivery business). Tell me, do you
>really want the government to control everything? What in the world
>could lead you to have such a desire? Were you unloved as a child or
>something?
Read my lips: FedEx. UPS. Airborne. Emery.
FAX. E-mail. Voice mail.
As to "unloved as a child" only a jerk would make such a remark.
[irrelevant noise omitted]
As to kill filing you, since you are so obviously unable to tell the truth
about what others say, and since I don't seem to find your current address
there for whatever reason, Plonk!
jim thomas
<snip>
>More irrelevant baloney. Stick to the topic, if you're capable of doing
>that. Personal attacks don't enhance credibility but reveal a lack of it.
>
<snip>
>They didn't offer. If they did, I'd consider it if they were technically
>competent. Your wise guy remarks show you total lack of seriousness.
<snip>
>As to "unloved as a child" only a jerk would make such a remark.
>People who post newsgroup flames
>Must have flammable gas for brains.
>Burma Shave.
Ah, that Sternlight. No sense of irony. Hope somebody's keeping a list of
how often he's resorted to name-calling in this thread and how often he's
complained of being the <perceived> target of same. I've always thought he
was just full of hot air, but if his sig is correct, it suggests that his
brain may be fried.
Just tryin' to be helpful..........
jt
W. Kinney
>
>Frankly, I like the idea of an organization with offices all over the
>country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
>offering certificate or signature services. Sounds pretty convenient to me.
Have to agree with David on this one. This sounds like an excellent role
for the USPS. Surely the EFF has better things to do than prevent the
government from offering useful services!
-- Will
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <byoderCu...@netcom.com>,
>Brian K. Yoder <byo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <strnlghtC...@netcom.com> da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>>>you don't like it, don't use it. There is no suggestion that this will be
>>>either compulsory, nor that it will eliminate (or even that the USPS has the
>>>power to eliminate) alternatives from other companies.
>>You mean like they "offer" mail delivery on the open market? I am not
>>surprised that you want the government to run this particular aspect
>>of network security since instituting such schemes seems to be your
>>primary goal in life. In any event, since when have you seen the government
>>grab control of something while saying "We are going to be mean and nasty
>>and abuse everyone."?
>I said no such thing. You are putting "government run this" words in my
>mouth. What I said was USPS offering the service in the marketplace in
>competition with other commercial offerors. Stop falsifying what people say,
>and respond to what they actually say.
I am responding to what people say, and I have seen enough attempts of
government agencies to expand their power to know what such a grab looks like.
Do I think the USPS is clear, open, and honest? No. Do I think you are
clear, open, and honest? No, I don't. So when I see the USPS claiming to
want to occupy some critical niche in the information distribution system
I can see where it is leading. No bureaucracy is satisfied with allowing
competition if it is threatened and has the power to eliminate the
competition. Of course they will avoid talking about establishing a
monopoly for themselves if they think it won't be popular even if they have
every intention of establishing one for themselves. If they woul give up
their legal monopoly on first class mail I might be willing to accept that
they opose such schemes on principle. Since there's not a snowball's
chance of it, excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
>>I wonder if your evaluation of this proposal as not being "compulsory"
>>was done with the same keen insight that made you claim the same thing
>>about the Clipper chip?
>More irrelevant baloney. Stick to the topic, if you're capable of doing
>that. Personal attacks don't enhance credibility but reveal a lack of it.
It's perfectly relevant. We have here one more government agency trying to
occupy a critical niche in the net, just like with Clipper. My pointing
out that your position on this issue is the same as that on Clipper isn't
a baseless personal attack, it's a fact. You may not like the fact that I
think you are intellectually dishonest (as do a great many others) but it's
true and I'm not going to pretend otherwise in order to shield your ego.
>>Look, the government is supposed to be LIMITED in the scope of things it
>>controls. Do you know what that word means? Do you know why it was
>>designed to be limited in the first place? Where in the Constitution do
>>you see the words "data encryption" mentioned?
>Do you have some problem understanding that the USPS is not the government?
In the most important respect it is. Its official legal status and its
de facto status as a government-defined and government-enforced monopoly
make the legal fine details pretty irrelevant.
>Do you have some problem understanding what the USPS actually offered (hint:
>it was not data encryption)?
I know exactly what they are offering. I was pointing out the similarity
between your positions on Clipper and this. I never claimed that the two
proposals were the same exept that they are both examples of government
organizations seeking to monopolize some key aspect of net communication.
>>As for convenience, a live validation service could be supplied online
>>in a transparent manner regardless of who did it. Whether it was
>>Western Union (which has also been around for a long time and isn't going to
>>go away and has lots of offices) or Netcom or AT&T, the convenience
>>would be about the same...if the service is done right, and given a choice
>>between the three, I would predict that the Post Office would be the
>>least convenient and most expensive.
>Totally irrelevant. If others want to offer the service as well, let them. I
>suggested this, rather than suggesting it be restricted to the USPS alone.
>Are you so involved in making yourself right and others wrong that you are
>falsifying what they say when you can't deal with it directly?
No, I'm just not naive enough to believe a government bureaucracy when it
says that it wants to allow competition (espectially as it cracks down on
customers who don't abide by their existing monopoly on postal mail).
Earl Cooley
thousands of dollars by the USPS for the "crime" of overusing FedEx in
preference to 1st Class Mail. If that kind of power is extended to electronic
traffic as well, then the "real" companies who try to compete will be at a
severe regulatory disadvantage.
--
Earl Cooley III
sh...@io.com
Michaael Cantrell
>
>I am responding to what people say, and I have seen enough attempts of
>government agencies to expand their power to know what such a grab looks like.
>Do I think the USPS is clear, open, and honest? No. Do I think you are
>clear, open, and honest? No, I don't. So when I see the USPS claiming to
>want to occupy some critical niche in the information distribution system
>I can see where it is leading. No bureaucracy is satisfied with allowing
>competition if it is threatened and has the power to eliminate the
>competition. Of course they will avoid talking about establishing a
>monopoly for themselves if they think it won't be popular even if they have
>every intention of establishing one for themselves. If they woul give up
>their legal monopoly on first class mail I might be willing to accept that
>they opose such schemes on principle. Since there's not a snowball's
>chance of it, excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
I think you are overestimating the collective intelligence of
beauracracies. I think it just the nature of these things to expand as
much as possible to control as much as possible-- look at
Congress. And based on historical precedent, I think it is safe to say
that any such national program operated by the USPS will quickly bloat
on taxpayers' money to dominate the market and to repress and oppress
any potential competition. I cannot however ascribe direct motive to
the folks at USPS (unless of course, the NSA has really pushed them to
it :) ). However, as a maxim, I've always found Frank Herbert's words
to provide particular illumination, to paraphrase, "It's not that
power corrupts, but that power attracts the corruptible." In any case,
the USPS should not be running the digital signitre game.
--Mike
>>>Look, the government is supposed to be LIMITED in the scope of things it
>>>controls. Do you know what that word means? Do you know why it was
>>>designed to be limited in the first place? Where in the Constitution do
>>>you see the words "data encryption" mentioned?
>
>>Do you have some problem understanding that the USPS is not the government?
To David:
USPS= UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. Certainly has *nothing* to do
with government right? May I point out that the Executive branch is
not the government either. It is a *branch*, one of three, that were
constructed in such a way to provide appropriate checks and balances
to each other. Reccently, we have seen more and more attempts by
groups within the government to usurp priviledges previous belonging
to us, you know, those folks the words "of the people, by the people,
for the people" were referring to. Just in case you've forgotten,
David.
>
>In the most important respect it is. Its official legal status and its
>de facto status as a government-defined and government-enforced monopoly
>make the legal fine details pretty irrelevant.
>
--Mike
--
Mike Cantrell | Owner/Publisher Arez Press
PO Box 3538 C/S | PO Box 978
Socorro, NM, 87801
email: fia...@prism.nmt.edu
Curt Howland
|> I am disturbed by the fact that corporations have been fined hundreds of
|> thousands of dollars by the USPS for the "crime" of overusing FedEx in
|> preference to 1st Class Mail. If that kind of power is extended to electronic
|> traffic as well, then the "real" companies who try to compete will be at a
|> severe regulatory disadvantage.
In fact, the government has given the USPS the
monopoly on "First Class" mail.
Companies like FedEx and UPS are not allowed
to create a service that would apear to compete
with the USPS directly, yet cheap overnight
is fair game since the others came up with it
first.
I heard that FedEx already tried to make a cut-rate
small-envelope service, but was stopped since that
would begin to muscle in on "First Class". I have
no proof that it has actually been tested, however.
|> Earl Cooley III
|> sh...@io.com
---
Curt Howland "Ace" DoD#0663 EGFC#011 EFF#569
how...@walrus.mvhs.edu '82 V45 Sabre
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
-Seneca, 65 AD
eric traudt
> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 10:46:48 -0400
> From: cmer...@reach.com (Charles Merrill -- McCarter ^ English - Newark )
> Subject: USPS Elec Comm Serv
> in the need for a mechanism for establishing the reliability of
> an electronic transmission, and binding an individual to it. I
> therefore do not believe that it will be necessary to conduct a
> detailed exploration of the advantages of building a public key
> infrastructure as a solution to the technical problems of
> providing security for electronic documents. What I will talk to
> you about is the role the Postal Service can play in providing
> these technical solutions where they are needed.
Please stop burning snail mail before you get more involved in my life.
/
David Sternlight
Michaael Cantrell <fia...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>In article <byoderCu...@netcom.com>,
>Brian K. Yoder <byo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>I am responding to what people say, and I have seen enough attempts of
>>government agencies to expand their power to know what such a grab looks like.
>>Do I think the USPS is clear, open, and honest? No. Do I think you are
>>clear, open, and honest? No, I don't. So when I see the USPS claiming to
>>want to occupy some critical niche in the information distribution system
>>I can see where it is leading. No bureaucracy is satisfied with allowing
>>competition if it is threatened and has the power to eliminate the
>>competition. Of course they will avoid talking about establishing a
>>monopoly for themselves if they think it won't be popular even if they have
>>every intention of establishing one for themselves. If they woul give up
>>their legal monopoly on first class mail I might be willing to accept that
>>they opose such schemes on principle. Since there's not a snowball's
>>chance of it, excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
>
This is the application of a generalization where it doesn't apply. The
postal service has no authority to prohibit any commercial activities except
first class mail, and that authority is very old. It would doubtless not
have been granted today if asked for of Congress, and they have gained no
new authorities of a monopoly character. They have tried new services,
including electronic mail via fax from post office to post office, and they
have failed in the marketplace and disappeared without a trace. They are
regulated by a very strict board which has consistently delayed and reduced
their applications for rate increases. Hardly "Big Brother". Thus your, and
Yoder's remarks are attempts to flog a prejudicial ideology in an area where
it clearly does not apply, and with ample legal and historical evidence that
it does not apply.
Get off it. Just because you have a hammer doesn't make everything you see a
a nail.
> I think you are overestimating the collective intelligence of
>beauracracies. I think it just the nature of these things to expand as
>much as possible to control as much as possible-- look at
>Congress. And based on historical precedent, I think it is safe to say
>that any such national program operated by the USPS will quickly bloat
>on taxpayers' money to dominate the market and to repress and oppress
>any potential competition. I cannot however ascribe direct motive to
>the folks at USPS (unless of course, the NSA has really pushed them to
>it :) ). However, as a maxim, I've always found Frank Herbert's words
>to provide particular illumination, to paraphrase, "It's not that
>power corrupts, but that power attracts the corruptible." In any case,
>the USPS should not be running the digital signitre game.
This is just plain nutty. The post office has no access to taxpayer's money.
They can only get what people choose to spend by buying stamps for services.
If you choose to spend, say, your electronic signature money, with RSADSI
instead of with the Post Office, there is nothing the post office can do.
They don't get the revenue and have no call on either Congress or your taxes
to remedy that market failure and "make" you use them for signatures. Any
attempt (though they have no authority to make one to Congress) would be
immediately met by powerful opponents including the commercial sector and
public interest groups and would be doomed to fail.
>
> To David:
> USPS= UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. Certainly has *nothing* to do
>with government right? May I point out that the Executive branch is
>not the government either. It is a *branch*, one of three, that were
>constructed in such a way to provide appropriate checks and balances
>to each other. Reccently, we have seen more and more attempts by
>groups within the government to usurp priviledges previous belonging
>to us, you know, those folks the words "of the people, by the people,
>for the people" were referring to. Just in case you've forgotten,
>David.
This is flatly wrong. Except for the one monopoly obtained by Benjamin
Franklin, with respect to what we now call first class mail, they have none
of the powers over the people you are raving about, nor have they authority
or precedent to ask new powers to Congress. To the contrary, when Congress
abolished the U.S. Post Office Department, they cut them loose from the
government. I suggest you read the history of this. It sounds like you're a
kid who came in in the middle of this particular movie and doesn't
understand the situation (nor does Yoder) and are assuming out of ignorance
that the USPS is the old Post Office Department abolished by Congress 30-40
years ago.
To paraphrase Santillana, those who don't understand history are doomed to
babble nonsense about it.
David
David Sternlight
>kid who came in in the middle of this particular movie and doesn't
>understand the situation (nor does Yoder) and are assuming out of ignorance
>that the USPS is the old Post Office Department abolished by Congress 30-40
>years ago.
>
>To paraphrase Santillana, those who don't understand history are doomed to
>babble nonsense about it.
To avoid any misunderstanding or the inadvertent giving of offense, "kid" in
the above is chronological only--i.e. someone too young to remember the
abolition of the Post Office Department and the creation of the USPS by
Congress, with the associated change in legal status, powers, and
authorities.
Donald L. Nash
Sternlight) wrote:
>To the contrary, when Congress
>abolished the U.S. Post Office Department, they cut them loose from the
>government. I suggest you read the history of this. It sounds like you're a
>kid who came in in the middle of this particular movie and doesn't
>understand the situation (nor does Yoder) and are assuming out of ignorance
>that the USPS is the old Post Office Department abolished by Congress 30-40
>years ago.
Actually it was 24 years ago. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970
abolished the U.S. Post Office and created the U.S. Postal Service as a
nonprofit corporation. The USPS is not an organ of the federal
government, although it is regulated by the fed under the Executive
Branch.
I love on-line encyclopedias.
++Don Nash
Internet: D.N...@utexas.edu The University of Texas System
THEnet: THENIC::DON Office of Telcommunication Services
David A. Honig
>No. You're just political wimps not battling anything.
>Evidence? The tele-phony bill and your continuing priority push for
>a more socialist net. My money (what little there is) is going to
I also have this problem with the infobahn proposals: they seek to
steal from some so others can play on the net. Rural folk initially have to
pay extra for cable companies' laying of cable; is is socialism to
have some pay for others' access. Equal access means everyone can
read/write/have an ftp site; it doesn't mean everyone gets an account
without compensating the providers, at others expense.
But the socialists are in power and the lobbyists try to appear humanitarian
(to the naif) by claiming everyone will get a link cheap.
--
David A. Honig, informivore
Prof. D. Denning: fool, fascist or Faust? Only the NSA knows for sure..
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
Paul A. Karger
|> This is flatly wrong. Except for the one monopoly obtained by Benjamin
|> Franklin, with respect to what we now call first class mail, they have none
|> of the powers over the people you are raving about, nor have they authority
|> or precedent to ask new powers to Congress.
Minor correction required here:
The Post Office's monopoly over first class mail does not date from
Benjamin Franklin, but rather from the Pony Express statutes of around
1840 or 1860 or thereabouts.
David Sternlight
David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>>you don't like it, don't use it. There is no suggestion that this will be
>>either compulsory, nor that it will eliminate (or even that the USPS has the
>>power to eliminate) alternatives from other companies.
>
>How *dare* you use the word "marketplace" in the same sentence as USPS.
>The USPS is a taxpayer subsidized government-thug-implemented-monopoly.
False. Evidence, please.
>
>
>>
>>country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
>
>At taxpayer's expense..
False. Evidence, please.
>
>>This anti-institutional hysteria has really gone too far, Brian.
>
>Please read some economics before using words like "marketplace"
>
I have a Ph.D. in Economics. And you?
Rahul Dhesi
(Donald L. Nash) writes:
>The USPS is not an organ of the federal
>government...
Where can one find a good definition of the phrase 'organ of the federal
government'?
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
also: dh...@cirrus.com
Christopher Key
>David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>>How *dare* you use the word "marketplace" in the same sentence as USPS.
>>The USPS is a taxpayer subsidized government-thug-implemented-monopoly.
>
>False. Evidence, please.
Which part of that sentence are you claiming as false? I would strike
the words "thug implemented" myself(although the character of various
government officials can be argued about, I'm not going to), but the rest
of the sentence seems reasonable to me. I doubt that anyone would argue
with "taxpayer-subsidized", given the recent budget numbers I've seen.
And given that it is illegal for other delivery services to use
mailboxes, there seems to me to be a (fairly small) monopoly.
>>>country, and one that has been around for some time and will continue to be,
>>
>>At taxpayer's expense..
>
>False. Evidence, please.
I seem to remember recently budget numbers that indicated that the post
office was consistently losing money. I'm about to leave for a
convention, or I'd look them up and verify them. If this discussion is
still raging in a week, I will.
>>>This anti-institutional hysteria has really gone too far, Brian.
>>
>>Please read some economics before using words like "marketplace"
>>
>I have a Ph.D. in Economics. And you?
Unlike some (not you, generally), I refuse to taunt or name-call, but
upon careful thought, I don't really see the post office as participating
in a free market, because it's prices are fixed and regulated. As a
service so that the government's own message traffic could get through, I
believe it served its purpose well, but is quickly becoming obsolete.
Skip
David Sternlight
Donald L. Nash <D.N...@utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <strnlghtC...@netcom.com>, da...@sternlight.com (David
>Sternlight) wrote:
>>To the contrary, when Congress
>>abolished the U.S. Post Office Department, they cut them loose from the
>>government. I suggest you read the history of this. It sounds like you're a
>>kid who came in in the middle of this particular movie and doesn't
>>understand the situation (nor does Yoder) and are assuming out of ignorance
>>that the USPS is the old Post Office Department abolished by Congress 30-40
>>years ago.
>
>Actually it was 24 years ago. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970
>abolished the U.S. Post Office and created the U.S. Postal Service as a
>nonprofit corporation. The USPS is not an organ of the federal
>government, although it is regulated by the fed under the Executive
>Branch.
>
>I love on-line encyclopedias.
Very nice, Don. Is this encyclopedia accessible via the net? It would make a
lot of fact checking much easier.
Donald L. Nash
Sternlight) wrote:
>Very nice, Don. Is this encyclopedia accessible via the net? It would make a
>lot of fact checking much easier.
It is a WAIS-indexed version of Groliers Electronic Encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, our license does not allow us to make it publicly
accessible outside UT.
Donald L. Nash
>Where can one find a good definition of the phrase 'organ of the federal
>government'?
All I can do is refer you to the same source I used: Groliers Electronic
Encyclopedia. I paraphrased from there. The USPS is a nonprofit
corporation independent of the USG. It is not an executive department as
the USPO was, it is not part of the federal bureaucracy, and its employees
are not considered federal employees. However, its operation is overseen
by the Executive Branch. My guess is that the USG is either the sole
stockholder of the corporation or owns a controlling interest in the
stock. The Groliers article doesn't go into that detail.
Samuel D Hartman
Curt Howland <how...@walrus.mvhs.edu> wrote:
>
>In fact, the government has given the USPS the
>monopoly on "First Class" mail.
>
>Companies like FedEx and UPS are not allowed
>to create a service that would apear to compete
>with the USPS directly, yet cheap overnight
>is fair game since the others came up with it
>first.
>
I think this is the point. Why does the USPS still need this
monopoly. What was the original reason it was granted and why is it
suposed to still be necessary.
I can sort of understand local monopolies like electricity,
cable, phone, but why is there a need for a national monopoly for
mail.
(Newsgroups and followup-to restricted)
--Sam
Mark Bentley
: Which part of that sentence are you claiming as false? I would strike
: government officials can be argued about, I'm not going to), but the rest
: of the sentence seems reasonable to me. I doubt that anyone would argue
: with "taxpayer-subsidized", given the recent budget numbers I've seen.
: And given that it is illegal for other delivery services to use
: mailboxes, there seems to me to be a (fairly small) monopoly.
I hate to break up the party, but USPS has not been tax subsidized since
1981, ten years after their creation. Nixon signed the whole shebang
into office on Aug 12, 1970.
While Postmaster General used to be a cabinet level position, it is no
longer.
I'll admit that since their board of governers (well, nine of eleven) are
Presidential appointees requiring Senate approval, they are still more
closely tied to the federal government than your average corporation.
: I seem to remember recently budget numbers that indicated that the post
: office was consistently losing money. I'm about to leave for a
: convention, or I'd look them up and verify them. If this discussion is
: still raging in a week, I will.
Last year's deficit ran a little under a billion. This fiscal year looks
to be a little better, but they're still going through the throes of
Marvin Runyon's massive reorganization.
As an aside, Runyon has also orderd the Inspection Service to curtail the
attacks based on first class exclusivity. He recognizes that it is a
public relations nightmare, according to some interviews I've read.
That law, BTW, dates back A Long Time, although I do not have the year in
front of me. But it predates Federal Express, et al.
It has been pointed out by several posters that virtual truckloads of
first class mail have been destroyed or hidden recently. True. While I
am aghast at such practices, one must point out that they _do_ deliver
about a billion pieces every three working days. Quickly zipping up my
asbestos jacket, I must point out that statistically this represents a
very small failure rate...
Mark
John McCarthy
with the late 19th century establishment of rural free delivery. The
idea was that RFD would require heavy subsidy, and this subsidy was to
be financed by giving the Post Office a monopoly on urban mail.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
John McCarthy
was a cabinet officer. It was converted to the U.S. Postal Service by
Congress in response to a complaint that the Post Office was
inefficient and would do better if privatized. Privatization was
bitterly fought by the postal unions, because they had used politics
to get Congress to improve their salaries, tenure and working
conditions to a point far above that of workers of comparable skill in
other industries. Postal employees at all levels were famous for
goofing off. My brother once worked in the Post Office and told
fearsome tales of this.
There was also opposition from interests that enjoyed favorable postal
rates.
The law that created the Postal Service was a compromise a long way
short of full privatization. Some features included
1. Considerable protection of tenure of postal employees. It is still
almost impossible for one to be fired.
2. Rates are set by a Postal Rates Commission that is subject to
political influence.
3. Rural Free Delivery and special rates for non profits are
preserved.
4. The Private Express Statute that maintain a postal monopoly of
certain services was continued. Recently some companies that use
Federal Express were sued by the Postal Service on the grounds that
some of their Federal Express mailings didn't really need the
overnight delivery that was the basis for the protection of Federal
Express from the statute.
Snowhare
: I think this is the point. Why does the USPS still need this
: monopoly. What was the original reason it was granted and why is it
: suposed to still be necessary.
: I can sort of understand local monopolies like electricity,
: cable, phone, but why is there a need for a national monopoly for
: mail.
To prevent "cherry picking". It is cheap to deliver mail to big cities
and metropolitan areas. It is expensive to deliver mail to extremly rural
areas. So the metro mail areas subsidize the rural ones. If companies
were allowed to compete for first class mail (without being required to
deliver to rural areas for the same price) you would see massive cherry
picking of the high profit, low cost cities wile the US Postal Service would
be left with only those rural areas it was not economical to deliver mail to.
Add in a justifiable fear that unrestricted competition would flush many USPS
jobs down the tubes and the reaction to the suggestion of unrestricted
competition is very predictable.
--
Benjamin Franz
Philip Machanick
: If I remember correctly, the Private Express Statute was associated
: with the late 19th century establishment of rural free delivery. The
: idea was that RFD would require heavy subsidy, and this subsidy was to
: be financed by giving the Post Office a monopoly on urban mail.
This is a simple example of cross-subsidising. This is not even
necessarily a practice associated with government. Consider the
insurance industry: everyone who claims is cross-subsidised by
everyone who doesn't. In the most extreme case, medical
insurance, the elderly are usually subsidised by the young.
Obviously reasons for the principle differ in different industries
but the fundamental motiviation remains: there is some greater
social good (everyone being covered by insurance, everyone being
able to receive mail) which motivates the concept.
Back to the mail example: the goal is to have a cheap efficient
mail service with universal coverage. Cross-subsidising is a
means to that end. The USPS monopoly on 1st class mail is presumably
meant to make this viable. My guess (please feel free to look
this up in your nearest electronic encyclopedia) is that the
theory behind the monopoly is that without one, commercial
operators would filch all the profitable urban trade and leave
the government postal service with an unprofitable shell.
Times have changed. It is possible that there may be another
mechanism that would be as good or better. But I can see the logic
for the original concept.
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Computer Science Department, University of he Witwatesrand
2050 Wits, South Africa 27(11)716-3309 fax 339-7965
(at University of Cape Town until November: 27(21)650-4058)
Ginger Warbis
<bunch of redundancy deleted>
So tell me, David, what the hell are all those one way windows around the
inside of post offices for? And what exactly does it mean when you see a
coat hanging on one of the entrance doors? (located outside the building,
usually) and how, if the USPO is ont funded by the government, were they
able to operate in a deficite for many years running and still none of
the paychecks bounced? Also, just to be as tight assed as you seem to be,
I should point out that "buying" postage is not exactly the same as, say,
buying potatos. Postage is currency printed by the U.S. mint.
--
>-- If they can get you to watch your T.V.
Rapatchya Later!, then it doesn't need to Watch Y00u.
gwa...@satelnet.org http://SatelNET.org/~gwarbis
David Sternlight
It's not just the benefits of cross-subsidy in practice--it's getting the
system to the point of being able to cross-subsidize when it's in the public
policy interest. When we had many small first class mail carriers, none
could afford to serve the really small localities for what amounted to the
price of a first class stamp, and since there were many, none was large
enough to have the capital to do. In addition to that, since there was
competition in the lucrative locations, prices were competed down. By
creating a monopoly, monopoly profits were created in the lucrative areas by
both cost savings through scale, and the ability to raise prices. The quid
pro quo, as has been said, was to serve the unprofitable areas. Voila! The
"universal access" the populists here want.
Note carefully. The cost of universal access was the granting of a monopoly.
Same for phone service. Until equipment was in place (sunk costs) and the
market had developed, the only way to get long distance to the
"unprofitable" areas was a monopoly (AT&T). It was a regulated monopoly not
only to insure universal service but also to control rates to the level that
would assure that at "normal" (i.e. competitive-equivalent) profits for the
totality. Urban customers cross-subsidized rural ones.
It is left as an exercise for the interested reader to see how these lessons
apply to the current cries for universal access to the evolving "Information
Highway", much less cries for low-cost or free access for "worthy"
candidates.
Ginger Warbis
>>Where can one find a good definition of the phrase 'organ of the federal
>>government'?
>
{}=notation added by gwarbis
(Ehghemmm....)
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-0010
Phone 202-268-2000
Board of Governors:
Chairman of the Board Robert Setrakian
Vice chairman of the Board John L. Ryan
Scty of the Board Susan E. Alvarado, John N Griesmer, Ira
D. Hall, Tirso Del Junco, M.D., Bert H.
Mackie, Crocker Nevin, Norma Pace
Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank
and on and on and on for another full printed page. (let me know if you
need this info and I'll be glad to look it up for you)
[for the United States Postal Service statement of organization, see the
Code of Federal Regulations, title 39, parts 221-226] {I'd also be happy
to forward this to anyone who requests it}
The United States Postal Service Provides mail processing and delivery
services to individuals and businesses within the United States. The
service is committed to the development of efficient mail-handling
systems and operates it's own planning and engineering programs. It is
also the responsibility of the Postal Service to protect the mails from
loss or theft and to apprehend those who violate postal law. {law? Can a
pivate, not for profit organization make law David?}
The Postal Service was created as an independent establishment of the
executive branch by the Postal Reorganization Act (39 U.S.C. 101 et
swq.), approved August 12, 1970. The United States Postal Service
commenced operations on July 1, 1971.
The Postal Service has more than 830,00 employees {funny how their checks
are issued from the Department of the Treasury... just like tax refunds
and S.S. checks...}and handles 160 billion pieces of mail annually. The
chief executive officer of the Postal Service, the Postmaster General, is
appointed by the nine Governors of the Postal Service, who are appointed
by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for
overlapping 9 year terms. {no elected officials? That's not cool!} The 9
Govornors and the Postmaster General appoint the Deputy Postmaster
General, and these 11 people constitue the Board of Governors {and, at
some point in history, decided it was cool to use one way glass to keep
your work-force straight}
In addition to the national headquarters, there are regional and
field division offices supervising more than 40,000 post offices,
branches, stations, and community post offices throughout the United States.
{Stuff deleted about Activities...} The Postal Inspection Service, the
law enforcement arm of the Postal Service, {A not for profit organization
w/ it's own law enforcement arm? Where can *I* get one of
those???}protects the mails, postal funds, and property; investigates
internal conditions and needs that may affect postal security and
effectiveness; apprehends those who violate the postal laws; and audits
financial and nonfinancial operations.
{more stuff on how to locate and contact your friendly neighborhood
postal inspector}
Ginger Warbis
>>No. You're just political wimps not battling anything.
>>Evidence? The tele-phony bill and your continuing priority push for
>>a more socialist net. My money (what little there is) is going to
>
>I also have this problem with the infobahn proposals: they seek to
>steal from some so others can play on the net. Rural folk initially have to
>pay extra for cable companies' laying of cable; is is socialism to
>have some pay for others' access. Equal access means everyone can
>read/write/have an ftp site; it doesn't mean everyone gets an account
>without compensating the providers, at others expense.
>
>But the socialists are in power and the lobbyists try to appear humanitarian
>(to the naif) by claiming everyone will get a link cheap.
>
>
Let's take the inimitable Mr. Stearnlight's advise and see what the RFD
got us in the way of Postal service. {FedEx: Fast, affordable delivery
anywhere in the world, that's our business. USPS, it's just a sid-line
(quote credited to John J.T. McNulty)}
David A. Honig
>In article <32tlrn$a...@buckaroo.ics.uci.edu>,
>David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>> da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>>How *dare* you use the word "marketplace" in the same sentence as USPS.
>>The USPS is a taxpayer subsidized government-thug-implemented-monopoly.
>
>False. Evidence, please.
Numerous postings by others have described the government's favoring
of the P.O.
>>Please read some economics before using words like "marketplace"
>>
>
>I have a Ph.D. in Economics. And you?
From what planet?
I *had* thought economics was common sense, but apparently a PhD in the
former doesn't imply any of the latter...
Ginger Warbis
>: If I remember correctly, the Private Express Statute was associated
>: with the late 19th century establishment of rural free delivery. The
>: idea was that RFD would require heavy subsidy, and this subsidy was to
>: be financed by giving the Post Office a monopoly on urban mail.
>
>This is a simple example of cross-subsidising. This is not even
>necessarily a practice associated with government. Consider the
>insurance industry: everyone who claims is cross-subsidised by
>everyone who doesn't. In the most extreme case, medical
>insurance, the elderly are usually subsidised by the young.
Now there's a shining example of cross-subsidising at it's finest!!!
>Obviously reasons for the principle differ in different industries
>but the fundamental motiviation remains: there is some greater
>social good (everyone being covered by insurance, everyone being
>able to receive mail) which motivates the concept.
There's also a fundimental flaw; eventually everyone would get in on it
anyway just as we all have written language, running water, electricity
(well, except for those who chose not to have these things or would
rather live in a place that doesn't have them)
>Times have changed. It is possible that there may be another
>mechanism that would be as good or better. But I can see the logic
>for the original concept.
Times haven't changed that much and human nature hasn't changed any that
I can see. The best way to manage the net is to go on letting it manage
itself the way it has for the past 25 years. If it ain't broke, DONT FIX
IT!!!!!!!!!
Robert Lewis Glendenning
David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>In article <32tlrn$a...@buckaroo.ics.uci.edu>,
>>David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>>> da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>>>Arrant nonsense. The USPS is going to offer a service in the marketplace. If
>...
>>>How *dare* you use the word "marketplace" in the same sentence as USPS.
>>>The USPS is a taxpayer subsidized government-thug-implemented-monopoly.
>>
>>False. Evidence, please.
>
>Numerous postings by others have described the government's favoring
>of the P.O.
>
>
>>>Please read some economics before using words like "marketplace"
>>>
>>
>>I have a Ph.D. in Economics. And you?
>
>From what planet?
>
>I *had* thought economics was common sense, but apparently a PhD in the
>former doesn't imply any of the latter...
>
>
If you guys would stop insulting each other, you would have time to
keep up with recent news stories.
1) The Post Office has a monopoly, enforced at the point of our
Federal Government's gun, on First Class mail.
2) The friendly PO has recently been visiting the mail rooms of
corporations in the Bay Area, opening FedX, etc. packages (not
protected by the privacy laws of the PO's first class mail), and
fining companies ($10,000 per violation, as I recall), for sending
non-time-sensitive documents via FedX when they could have been
sent via first-class mail.
On the whole, the Ph.D. in economics lost this exchange, IMHO.
Not unusual, here in the real world.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION.
John J. Reego
agency performing any function.
First, government agencies are not accountable for their actions. They
don't seem to care about the quality of service they provide. And
when they harm someone it is almost impossible seek justice through
the court system. In some cases you have to ask for permission
to sue.
The second problem is that many government agencies perform their
task so poorly that they must seek legeslation that makes
them a monopoly. Or they need to be subsidized with tax money.
Government agencies are so inefficient that they just couldn't
exist in a free market.
So with fax machines, a global network, UPS, FEDEX, etc. if there
comes a time when the post office is no longer needed I certainly
won't lose any sleep over it.
JR
Philip Machanick
> It is left as an exercise for the interested reader to see how these lessons
> apply to the current cries for universal access to the evolving "Information
> Highway", much less cries for low-cost or free access for "worthy"
> candidates.
I'm pleased you saw the connection. I was hoping someone would.
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that a critical mass
is needed before cross-subsidising can occur, and one means to this end is
granting monopolies. However in the long run it may no longer seem so
desirable to continue with monopolies.
Rather than an all-or-nothing argument as seems to be the norm when
discussing this issue on the net this suggests to me that there may be
phases in which a given strategy makes sense, and later phases when it may
need to be reviewed.
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa (at University of Cape Town 4 July-7 Nov)
phone 27(11)716-3309 fax 27(11)339-7965
Olaf Seibert
Everytime someone mentions socialists and the USA government in one
sentence, I burst out in laughter for a minute, and then cry under my desk
for another five.
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert rhi...@mbfys.kun.nl Ooey-Gooey-Fluffy-Barfie
\X/ Eek! It's a .sig virus! It's spreading! -Alpha
Kurt Fuchs
> In article <332nq4$p...@buckaroo.ics.uci.edu>,
> David A. Honig <ho...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> >But the socialists are in power [...]
>
> Everytime someone mentions socialists and the USA government in one
> sentence, I burst out in laughter for a minute, and then cry under my desk
> for another five.
>
> -Olaf.
I can't laugh, neither cry on that. Such political understandings are
incredible.
Kurt
Rob Boudrie
>We will then see if the Postal Service tries to get a legal monopoly
>on digital signatures.
>
One way to accomplish this indirectly would be for the government to
establish a rule of evidence which grants USPS digital signatures
court recognitation as valid, while leavin ghte acceptance of non-USPS
signatures as a matter for individual courts, expert wittnesses,
opposint counsel, etc. to work out on a case by case basis.
David Sternlight
Philip Machanick <phi...@cs.wits.ac.za> wrote:
>In article <strnlghtC...@netcom.com>, da...@sternlight.com (David
>Sternlight) wrote:
>
>> It is left as an exercise for the interested reader to see how these lessons
>> apply to the current cries for universal access to the evolving "Information
>> Highway", much less cries for low-cost or free access for "worthy"
>> candidates.
>
>I'm pleased you saw the connection. I was hoping someone would.
>
>If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that a critical mass
>is needed before cross-subsidising can occur, and one means to this end is
>granting monopolies. However in the long run it may no longer seem so
>desirable to continue with monopolies.
>
>Rather than an all-or-nothing argument as seems to be the norm when
>discussing this issue on the net this suggests to me that there may be
>phases in which a given strategy makes sense, and later phases when it may
>need to be reviewed.
Very astute. However, it depends on a number of things:
1. Does the company given the monopoly so it can serve loss areas out of
higher monopoly profits from profitable areas trust the government, i.e. did
it make its calculations of the level of capital investment in "loss" areas
based on long-term or short-term profits in profitable areas. If the latter,
and the government takes away the preference after the investment has been
made, that may be unconstitutional, in any case is very bad faith, and no
other company will ever trust the government again--i.e. the government will
be unable to get loss areas served with some future service by granting a
monopoly.
2. Is the capital investment fully depreciated?
3. Will the company continue to serve the "loss" areas if the preferences
are removed, as soon as new capital investment, or even maintenance capital
is required?
There are many other questions but that will get you started. Some worked
examples recently are those of the "deregulation" of the airline industry
(translation: removing regulatory preferences, and selective local
monopolies), leading to the massive discontinuance of air service to now
unprofitable cities.
Same for bus service, leading to the eventual demise of bus service to many
cities.
Same for rail service, despite the addition of government subsidies. When
budgetary pressures caused the subsidies to be reduced, rail service
stopped. My own city, Pasadena, CA was one which lost rail service.
Fortunately, in our case there was a silver lining--the tracks and right of
way are going to be used for commuter light rail. But long haul is gone.
I've just scratched the surface with the above.
David Sternlight
John J. Reego <re...@rtsg.mot.com> wrote:
>I think that there are at least 2 problems with any governmental
>agency performing any function.
>
>First, government agencies are not accountable for their actions. They
>don't seem to care about the quality of service they provide. And
>when they harm someone it is almost impossible seek justice through
>the court system. In some cases you have to ask for permission
>to sue.
>
>The second problem is that many government agencies perform their
>task so poorly that they must seek legeslation that makes
>them a monopoly. Or they need to be subsidized with tax money.
>Government agencies are so inefficient that they just couldn't
>exist in a free market.
This is simply propaganda cant, and is wrong in many cases. In my own city,
Pasadena, CA the electricity, garbage collection, and water are run by the
government. We have one of the most efficient services in the region, among
the lowest rates, excellent responsiveness, very high reliability, and many
advanced technology features, including the latest in roll-out plastic
garbage cans and automated trucks with recycling segregation. We have many
conservation incentives--the city will subsidize water saving toilets
heavily out of avoided costs, low flow shower heads are free, etc.
Every few years some commercial company tries to get a measure on the ballot
to "privatize" the system. It is always roundly defeated because everyone
knows, by comparing rates, that this will only cause our rates to go up, and
our costs for the electric generating plant (except for maintenance) are
sunk costs.
There are many local, state, and even Federal agencies that do an excellent
job, at low costs. Even the much-maligned Post Office charges only 29 cents
for first class mail, and has massively mondernized their technology. In my
own area, again, the main sorting station is very modern, and we get
excellent regional delivery service and nearly everything in the region is
overnight if you mail in time for the early evening cancellation. FedEx also
offers a local and regional overnight service. It is about $12 or more, not
30 cents. It IS guaranteed, and for those for whom the guarantee is worth
$11.70, perhaps this is a good thing, but for most users it would be thrown
out money.
In addition to direct operations of the government, they contract out many
operations. I haven't heard complaints of massive waste and inefficiency
with respect to what was essentially a government-funded Internet backbone,
the NSFNet. Our military (except for lapses in procurement forced on them by
a distrustful Congress who thinks massive spending on paperwork to be sure a
hammer works right is better than getting cheap but good hammers) is a
marvel of efficiency in "pure" operations. Few countries could have mounted
the operations we've done in Africa. Even locally, after the California
Earthquake, the Army Engineers came in and built "instant" railroad stations
and other facilities to get us going while the civilians did the longer-term
road and bridge restoration. Emergency housing, water, and food was first
provided by the military in another operation the private sector would have
taken much longer to do, and much less efficiently.
I don't say everything our governments do is efficient and effective,
particularly when politicians get into the act to insure "pork", but blanket
condemnation of the sort in your message is simply ignorant propaganda.
David
>So with fax machines, a global network, UPS, FEDEX, etc. if there
>comes a time when the post office is no longer needed I certainly
>won't lose any sleep over it.
>
>JR
Kenneth Ng
:In article <rlglendeC...@netcom.com> rlgl...@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
:>2) The friendly PO has recently been visiting the mail rooms of
:>corporations in the Bay Area, opening FedX, etc. packages (not
:>protected by the privacy laws of the PO's first class mail), and
:>fining companies ($10,000 per violation, as I recall), for sending
:>non-time-sensitive documents via FedX when they could have been
:>sent via first-class mail.
Unfortunately no, he is not. Its been widely published in the papers that
the Post Office has been visiting corporations, auditing them, and then
deciding what was really worthy of FedEx, and then billing the corporation
for what was not. Just the kind of people I would trust with a national
identity card (NOT!).
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to k...@helios.njit.edu for now.
"He only hit him once with a brick, so it can't be attempted murder"
Nightline: on the Richard Denning trial
Dave Ratcliffe
- In <D.Nash-1908...@slip-5-8.ots.utexas.edu> D.N...@utexas.edu
- (Donald L. Nash) writes:
-
- >The USPS is not an organ of the federal
- >government...
-
- Where can one find a good definition of the phrase 'organ of the federal
- government'?
Better question:
If they're not then why do mail trucks have Government plates?
--
Dave Ratcliffe vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu
Harrisburg, Pa.
Andre Robatino
<snip>
: There are many other questions but that will get you started. Some worked
: examples recently are those of the "deregulation" of the airline industry
: (translation: removing regulatory preferences, and selective local
: monopolies), leading to the massive discontinuance of air service to now
: unprofitable cities.
: Same for bus service, leading to the eventual demise of bus service to many
: cities.
: Same for rail service, despite the addition of government subsidies. When
: budgetary pressures caused the subsidies to be reduced, rail service
: stopped. My own city, Pasadena, CA was one which lost rail service.
: Fortunately, in our case there was a silver lining--the tracks and right of
: way are going to be used for commuter light rail. But long haul is gone.
But the reason these areas became dependent on these services in the first
place was because of the price distortions caused by the original monopolies.
Once the mess has been created, the choices are 1) to tolerate the resulting
inefficiency until the end of time, or 2) to undergo adjustments which may be
painful in the short run but which leave the economy better off in the long
run. Admittedly some of these discontinuances may have been carried out with
too much haste and disruption.
: I've just scratched the surface with the above.
David Sternlight
>David Sternlight (strn...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>: There are many other questions but that will get you started. Some worked
>: examples recently are those of the "deregulation" of the airline industry
>: (translation: removing regulatory preferences, and selective local
>: monopolies), leading to the massive discontinuance of air service to now
>: unprofitable cities.
>
>: Same for bus service, leading to the eventual demise of bus service to many
>: cities.
>
>: Same for rail service, despite the addition of government subsidies. When
>: budgetary pressures caused the subsidies to be reduced, rail service
>: stopped. My own city, Pasadena, CA was one which lost rail service.
>: Fortunately, in our case there was a silver lining--the tracks and right of
>: way are going to be used for commuter light rail. But long haul is gone.
>
> But the reason these areas became dependent on these services in the first
>place was because of the price distortions caused by the original monopolies.
>Once the mess has been created, the choices are 1) to tolerate the resulting
>inefficiency until the end of time, or 2) to undergo adjustments which may be
>painful in the short run but which leave the economy better off in the long
>run. Admittedly some of these discontinuances may have been carried out with
>too much haste and disruption.
>
This discussion concatenates two separate issues:
1. The creation of a monopoly to cross-subsidize services to uneconomical
areas as national policy.
2. The regulation of monopolies consistent with the preceeding.
The first was national policy in the cases I mentioned. Given that, the
second followed, with "price distortions" not being what you called a "mess"
but rather the implementation of the first.
In considering deregulation of regulated monopolies created for valid public
purposes, one has to take responsibility for the "baggage" above. One cannot
simply ignore the original public purpose, nor the loss of service to some
price-subsidized areas by hand-waving about free markets and prices.
The arguments in the area have been pretty mendacious. The long distance
competitors of AT&T who originally cried for deregulation touted the
theoretical advantages, but not that local rates would rise dramatically and
long distance rates drop when subsidies were eliminated, given business a
huge benefit and small consumers a huge price increase.
The airline deregulation advocates also touted the theoretical advantages,
but were quite silent on the many eliminations of "uneconomic" services that
would follow.
I am a market advocate, but that doesn't mean we have to be blind to the
deleterious consequences of a transition from regulation to competition.
There are some things that should stay regulated for public policy reasons.
When deregulating, and the deregulatees get a large economic benefit from
said deregulation, one of the "prices" of deregulation should be to require
them to spend some of those benefits easing the transition for what will be
"uneconomic" customers after deregulation.
In the past, such transitions have been handled in a ham-handed way:
1. The government deregulates piece-by-piece, waiting for markets to
"adjust". That's essentially what Judge Greene has done with AT&T. Notice
that he now thinks markets have adjusted sufficiently for him to approve the
AT&T-McCaw merger.
2. The government provides for an "orderly transition" by requiring
phase-out of uneconomic services over a publicly stated time period.
Both approaches are inefficient because they try to use the market to get
from regulated monopoly to the market. But the market doesn't operate
according to the rules of competition when one is in a transition and not
yet fully in the competitive market. Yet we've learned that most
alternatives we've been able to think of, such as "adjustment assistance"
tend to become entitlements that go on forever. Nobody knows how to do this
well, probably because there is no way to do it well. So we use "second
best" approaches and look the other way.
To take a simple example, AT&T has been severely disadvantaged during the
transision period, to the extent that it seems as if the government has been
subsidizing MCI et. al by permitting them to charge lower rates until they
get to some target market share. AT&T argues that this is inequitable, and
it is. MCI argues that you can't get to competition unless the actors are of
viable size in the market, and they're right. What they don't say is that
they get this enormous windfall from the government (o.k. from Judge Greene)
as a result of their advocacy, and that windfall ultimately comes out of the
pockets of AT&T's stockholders (mostly pension funds, etc.--i.e. retired
people living on fixed incomes).
Philip Machanick
> I am a market advocate, but that doesn't mean we have to be blind to the
> deleterious consequences of a transition from regulation to competition.
> There are some things that should stay regulated for public policy reasons.
> When deregulating, and the deregulatees get a large economic benefit from
> said deregulation, one of the "prices" of deregulation should be to require
> them to spend some of those benefits easing the transition for what will be
> "uneconomic" customers after deregulation.
It may be interesting to some to report on the way digital cellular phones
were introduced in South Africa. 2 network comanies were set up to
encourage competition, one with partial shareholding by the
government-owned telephone service. Their services are resold by large
numbers of service providers.
Various public policy issues were considered in setting up regulation.
Poorer parts of the country which did not already have phone lines had to
be given subsidised cellular pay phones. The number of network companies
was restricted, and for an initial startup period were forced to offer
each other a share of their network so that maximum coverage would be
reached as fast as possible.
Competition is further encouraged by minimal regulation of who may resell
service. This extra layer of competition is where the real "market" is. A
large supermarket chain may want to sell service as a way of building its
market image and general clientelle. A pager comany may want to offer a
value-added messaging service - etc.
What has happened is there has been a clear split between the natural
monopoly - the network - which could not economically be split between
more than 2 companies, and the natural market - selling service to users.
The result has been more rapid drop in prices and higher quality of
service than I can remember for any new technology introdiced to this part
of the world.
Regulations forcing the networks to subsidise some services mean that they
are more universally available than with a pure market mechanism. Having
the 2 networks compete for clientelle among large supermarkets etc. forces
them to be very competitive as they have a lot to loose if they antagonize
one client. The service resellers on the other hand have to give good
deals because there are many of them.
Markets can actually work better with the right kind of regulation. Even
when a monopoly is natural it is possible to layer a market mechanism on
top of it.
Andrea Chen
>If I remember correctly, the Private Express Statute was associated
>with the late 19th century establishment of rural free delivery. The
>idea was that RFD would require heavy subsidy, and this subsidy was to
>be financed by giving the Post Office a monopoly on urban mail.
This is an important reminder of the logistics which went into building
this nation. Today it might be dismissed as "socialism", but RFD gave
a framer five hundred miles out on the plains more contact with the
world than a peasant ten miles from Vienna, Berlin or even Paris had.
This was part of a mass communications system which combined with
Sears Roebuck to give those in the west a richer selection of good than
was availible in many European cities.